Nugent critical of government's 'outrageous' policy on drones

Published: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 4:50 p.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 4:50 p.m.

U.S. Rep. Rich Nugent on Wednesday called it "outrageous" for the Obama administration to assert that the government can kill Americans suspected of terrorism, and he predicted the administration would "readjust" its thinking as more became known about its terrorist-targeting program.

"In my estimation, it's outrageous," Nugent said in an interview Wednesday, reacting to recent news that the Justice Department had issued a memo arguing that killing U.S. citizens tied to groups like al-Qaida was justified if an attack on Americans was imminent.

"I've spent my life enforcing the law, and while people can be for or against the death penalty, at least they (the suspects) get their day in court and their appeals before the death sentence is carried out," added Nugent, who spent almost four decades in law enforcement, the last 10 years as Hernando County's sheriff.

Nugent, a Brooksville Republican who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, represents most of Marion County, including the city of Ocala.

The memo, the existence of which was first reported by NBC News earlier this week, identified three conditions that had to be met before the president could lawfully order lethal strikes against a "senior operational leader" of al-Qaida or its "associated forces" operating on foreign soil.

The first is that an "informed, high level" official of the U.S. government has determined that a violent attack on the U.S. is imminent. And U.S. officials would not need "clear evidence" that such an attack would occur in the "immediate future."

Rather, the decision maker's call could be based on the opening of a "relevant" window of opportunity to prevent a future attack.

Secondly, capturing the suspect is deemed "infeasible," although officials would monitor that person to determine if or when capture does become viable.

Finally, the operation to neutralize the suspect would be conducted with the "applicable" laws of war.

The memo noted the "extraordinary seriousness" related to killing a U.S. citizen. Yet it also argues that such an act would not be out of bounds legally or constitutionally, and defined the rationale for such a drastic step.

The president is armed with both the constitutional responsibility to protect the country and congressional authority to strike against al-Qaida.

"Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attacks to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of national self defense," the DOJ document states.

Nugent said he sees nothing wrong with the president acting in self-defense if the person targeted is a foreigner.

It's placing Americans are in the cross-hairs, even those who have turned against their country, that he takes issue with.

"I have so many problems with that because where do you draw the line?" Nugent said. "When you start ignoring constitutional rights, you're on a slippery, slippery slope."

Nugent believed the Justice Department would reconsider the memo once John Brennan, Obama's anti-terrorism adviser, goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Brennan, whose writings are cited in the memo, is Obama's choice to be the new director Central Intelligence Agency director.

"At the end of the day I think the DOJ will readjust their opinion and follow the (expletive) law," Nugent said. "We have the rule of law in this country, and when the people think the government doesn't have to follow the law, as we saw in the Arab Spring, you lend yourself to anarchy at some point."

Nugent added that, in the alternative to the administration's opinion, the federal courts were well equipped to deal with this menace.

"We have ways to capture these people and take them to court, and we should do everything in our power to do that and bring them before the courts," he said.

<p>U.S. Rep. Rich Nugent on Wednesday called it "outrageous" for the Obama administration to assert that the government can kill Americans suspected of terrorism, and he predicted the administration would "readjust" its thinking as more became known about its terrorist-targeting program.</p><p>"In my estimation, it's outrageous," Nugent said in an interview Wednesday, reacting to recent news that the Justice Department had issued a memo arguing that killing U.S. citizens tied to groups like al-Qaida was justified if an attack on Americans was imminent.</p><p>"I've spent my life enforcing the law, and while people can be for or against the death penalty, at least they (the suspects) get their day in court and their appeals before the death sentence is carried out," added Nugent, who spent almost four decades in law enforcement, the last 10 years as Hernando County's sheriff.</p><p>Nugent, a Brooksville Republican who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, represents most of Marion County, including the city of Ocala.</p><p>The memo, the existence of which was first reported by NBC News earlier this week, identified three conditions that had to be met before the president could lawfully order lethal strikes against a "senior operational leader" of al-Qaida or its "associated forces" operating on foreign soil.</p><p>The first is that an "informed, high level" official of the U.S. government has determined that a violent attack on the U.S. is imminent. And U.S. officials would not need "clear evidence" that such an attack would occur in the "immediate future."</p><p>Rather, the decision maker's call could be based on the opening of a "relevant" window of opportunity to prevent a future attack.</p><p>Secondly, capturing the suspect is deemed "infeasible," although officials would monitor that person to determine if or when capture does become viable.</p><p>Finally, the operation to neutralize the suspect would be conducted with the "applicable" laws of war.</p><p>The memo noted the "extraordinary seriousness" related to killing a U.S. citizen. Yet it also argues that such an act would not be out of bounds legally or constitutionally, and defined the rationale for such a drastic step.</p><p>The president is armed with both the constitutional responsibility to protect the country and congressional authority to strike against al-Qaida.</p><p>"Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attacks to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of national self defense," the DOJ document states.</p><p>Nugent said he sees nothing wrong with the president acting in self-defense if the person targeted is a foreigner.</p><p>It's placing Americans are in the cross-hairs, even those who have turned against their country, that he takes issue with.</p><p>"I have so many problems with that because where do you draw the line?" Nugent said. "When you start ignoring constitutional rights, you're on a slippery, slippery slope."</p><p>Nugent believed the Justice Department would reconsider the memo once John Brennan, Obama's anti-terrorism adviser, goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Brennan, whose writings are cited in the memo, is Obama's choice to be the new director Central Intelligence Agency director.</p><p>"At the end of the day I think the DOJ will readjust their opinion and follow the (expletive) law," Nugent said. "We have the rule of law in this country, and when the people think the government doesn't have to follow the law, as we saw in the Arab Spring, you lend yourself to anarchy at some point."</p><p>Nugent added that, in the alternative to the administration's opinion, the federal courts were well equipped to deal with this menace.</p><p>"We have ways to capture these people and take them to court, and we should do everything in our power to do that and bring them before the courts," he said.</p><p><i>Contact Bill Thompson at 867-4117 or at bill.thompson@starbanner.com</i></p>